LORAS COLLEGE

The Use of Deception in Psychological Research

Ally Satterlee
Loras 10/23/2013

Satterlee 1 Deception is a term that carries negative connotation in everyday language. This is unfortunately a perception that can carry over into the publics understanding of its instrumental use in the field of psychology. Deception is an important research tool that has even been defined by some as a necessary evil (Kimmel, 2011). Its implementation helps researchers to isolate certain variables in research, specifically those that a participant might try to self-regulate, and rather than an evil it is more so a manipulation of variables. Conversely, it is regarded by some as causing undue emotional stress to test subjects or as a risk to the credibility of psychological research. Even when taking these claims into account, by simply examining the strict regulations established by the American Psychological Association and considering the great lengths that this method has contributed to the field of psychology, one can see that its advantages vastly outweigh the claims of its critics. McArthur (2008) explains how the stigma associated with deception in research can be traced back to Stanley Milgrams research that examined the individuals response to authoritative figures. The atrocities of the Holocaust during World War II had many people questioning how average men and women could commit such heinous acts as those occurring in the Nazi concentration camps. Many claimed that it stemmed from the human persons obedience to authority. This was a research hypothesis that Stanley Milgram undertook. In his article, McArthur (2008) details the methods of the study. From 1960 to 1963, Milgram and a team of researchers conducted one of the most famous, or even infamous, studies in psychology. The participants in the study numbered into over a thousand individuals from all walks of life. Participants were told that the team was studying the relationship between learning and punishment. The study included two confederate roles, the role of the researcher and the learner. The voluntary participant was classified as the teacher. The participant was instructed

Satterlee 2 to conduct an activity of word pairings with the learner, a confederate, during which the learner was supposed to choose the correct word among four options. For each mistake, the participant was told by the researcher to administer a shock from one of 30 levers that ranged from 15 to 450 volts (McArthur 2008). Above each of the voltage labels was some indicator of the strength of the shock, which showed the higher volts to be severely dangerous. The confederate who acted as the learner would also whimper or shout in pain at the shocks that they received. As the required administration of voltage rose, so did the anxiety of the research participant. He or she often expressed discomfort and concern for applying higher levels of shock to the learner. At this point the researcher would state, The experiment demands that you continue. The results of the experiment showed that 65% of participants would administer shocks that were of a deadly force. Kimmel (2011) defines the studys wider implications in stating, people are capable of inflicting extreme, potentially deadly punishment on innocent victims if compelled to do so by an authority figure (p. 580). This idea was extreme disheartening and disillusioning. The results show the at times powerlessness of our conscience and can shed more light on events such as the events of the Holocaust and Abu Ghraib. This is in line with an ethical decision making strategy that Epley and Huff (1998) termed as a consequentialist approach. They defined it as, an approach that equates what is right or moral being what brings about the most positive consequences (p. 760). The field of psychology generally would frown upon a method that invokes an ends justify the means type of approach, but given the fact that Stanley Milgrams study included no act of malice, just experimental manipulation, the approach is justified. The APA communicates its support for methods such as this stating, the investigator has a special

Satterlee 3 responsibility to determine whether the use of such techniques is justified by the studys prospective scientific, educational, or applied value (Epley & Huff, 1998, p. 760). Critics of this specific research study point the finger at the studys use of deception. They find fault in Milgram allowing individuals to believe that they were inflicting deadly electric shocks on another person (Herrera, 2001). When one considers the factors of the study, one can see that no one was forced into the research and neither was their hand forced into pulling the levers that elicited deadly shocks. They were merely told that it was important for the experiment that they continued. This illustrates the importance of an informed consent form. Another fault that those who take an anti-deception standpoint find is with the emotional state of the subjects following their participation in the study. A person may suffer stress after discovering that they were capable of harming another person in such a way. They argue that in this case, self-discovery is a negative thing. Herrera (2001) fires back stating that it is not the use of deception that caused this sense of shame. They felt ashamed because of a stronger awareness of the human condition. The use of deception in this experiment did not create or prime obedience to authority, it instead just created circumstances under which the phenomenon would emerge. Milgrams own response to critics was just that they were disturbed by his experiments results. Deception had become their scapegoat and the target for the negative affect of their disillusionment. It is also important to note that Milgrams experiment represents one of the most extreme examples of psychological deception at work and even it can be justified by an ethical undertaking and profound results. Much of the use of deception in psychology falls on the far other end of the spectrum. One such example is Aschs classic experiment on conformity. Subjects were presented with a simply and easy judgment call, determining which line length

Satterlee 4 matched the one that they were presented with (Deutsch & Gerard 1955). The influence of confederates in the study caused participants to choose a line, which they truly believed to be correct in an attempt to fit in with the others. This implementation of deception provided important insight into issues of conformity and was achieved with minimal to no risk to the participants. It represents just a small example of the wealth of knowledge accumulated by deception-based experiments. As these studies have demonstrated, deception is an integral tool in so many research procedures. Ortmann and Hertwig (1997) estimated that 81% of studies published in the top and most esteemed psychological journals included methods of deception. Ortmann and Hertwig (2002) later estimated that one in three psychological studies publishes in the 1990s did as well. This implies that the best and brightest researchers in the field view its use as not only acceptable, but also necessary. It is extremely important in studying many social phenomena. Through the use of deception, researchers can create and control the conditions of social situations (e.g. Aschs experiment). Without deception, it would be next to impossible to view such occurrences in a lab setting. Studying these phenomena in the field would allow for too much room for error and outside influence. For example, Milgrams study allowed for psychologists to tease apart the motivations for such heinous actions without having to recreate such horrible conditions in a laboratory setting or to rely on eye witness accounts. This is especially true when studying reactions in situations of emergency (Hertwig & Ortmann, 2008). Researchers staging these scenarios allows for the control and isolation of variables. Deception has been integral in studying conformity, the bystander effect, as well as the placebo effect, to just name a view breakthroughs.

Satterlee 5 Deception is also useful in making sure that participants are unable to predict the outcome of the experiment (Hertwig & Ortmann, 2008). Their behaviors will be their natural impulses, rather than a formulated response that seeks to support or discredit the psychologists research goals. Pascual-Leone, Singh, and Scoboria (2010) label participants responses that are aware of researcher motives as negativistic responding, apprehensive responding, and socially desirable responding. They use deception as a means to redirect the participants attention elsewhere. For example, in the Asch experiment, an individual might purposefully stick to the answer that he or she truly believes is right. They would do so in order to appear as someone who has integrity and courage and will stand out among the crowd. This would be done in order to look good for the research team and seek social approval. By hiding the studys true motives, psychologists received accurate results. Ortmann & Hertwig (1997) observed that participants may fail to supply, and may even withhold, information that is crucial to evaluating whether the procedures provide a valid test of the hypothesis. If participants cannot be counted on to divulge such information on their own, then researchers need to take additional precautions to assess participant suspicions and perceptions. This is executed through deception. One major point of contention with deception in psychological research is the concern for the sentiments of the participants who are deceived. Epley and Huff (1998) claim that it is the researchers that are more concerned about the negative effects of deception on participants that the actual participants are concerned about the negative effects upon themselves. Participants who are deceived in psychological research report little or no negative feelings towards their participation in the research. This may stem from a more comprehensive debriefing process that is required by deception based research.

Satterlee 6 A research study that replicated Aschs classic experiment discovered that participants who had been in a group that used deception displayed more negative symptoms than their undeceived counterparts (Hertwig & Ortmann, 2008). However, it was noted as being minor and they indicated that their participation in this study would not deter them from participating in other psychological studies. Deception also did not cause them to question the scientific validity of the research. This would suggest that there are rarely if ever circumstances when their participation is life altering or damaging. They also report that they have received more educational benefits from experiments that include an element of deception. In an article by Hertwig and Ortmann (2008) another criticism against the use of deception made popular by Herbert Kelman is raised. Kelman claimed that the execution of deceptive strategies in research would lead to a general population that would be suspicious of all psychological research. Instead of behaving naturally, people would begin to treat each study as if there is a hidden agenda and would act accordingly. Kelmans argument, while valid, did not necessarily predict how research would actually play out. This claim was made in the 1960s and today in the early 21st century, deception is still widely used. The key is that psychologists have had to find more creative ways of implementing it into their experiments. If psychologists were to use the Asch paradigm on participants who have taken an introduction to psychology course time and time again, it is valid to assume that its effects would begin to wane. Innovation and creativity are key. It is also worth mentioning that psychologists are not the only professionals that use tools of deception in their line of work (Kimmel, 2011). They are just more heavily regulated than some advertisers, politicians, and journalists. The same argument could be made about clever advertising strategies, that eventually their luck will run out and people will catch on to their

Satterlee 7 marketing schemes or that eventually people will stop voting for leaders who warp the truth to fit their own agendas. Yet, disciplines such as these are still successful and continue to prosper with innovative ideas as innovative experimental designers continue to as well. It can also be argued that of these professions, it is the psychologists that have the best intentions and loyalty to the truth. Psychologists must consider professional guidelines, legal strictures, and review board oversight (Kimmel, 2011, p. 581). It is also important to note that the use of deception in psychological research is highly controlled and regulated by the American Psychological Associations code of ethics. A research proposal must undergo review to make sure that it is of minimal risk and that its use of deception is justified. In section 8.07 of the APA code of ethics, it states, Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the studys significant prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and that effective non-deceptive alternative procedures are not feasible (American Psychological Association). This makes certain that its use is necessary in order to study the given theory of phenomena. This section of the code also mandates that the experiment cannot cause physical pain or any kind of intense emotional distress. In a later section of the APA Code of Ethics, 8.08, the APA focuses on the importance of the debriefing process. This section explains how a debriefing process must be implemented so that after the experiment participants may be fully informed of the researchs aims and its conclusions. Psychologists must also take reasonable steps to correct any misconceptions that participants may have of which the psychologists are aware (American Psychological Association). These measures as well as the entire process of institutional review are in place to

Satterlee 8 ensure that psychological experiments are being conducted ethically and that the risks of harm are minimized. The standards set up by the American Psychological Association make sure that when deception is used, it protects all those involved. The system of an institutional review board as well as the debriefing process ensures this. Deception contributes an ability to view how human subjects react when placed in both social situations and situations of emergency. Its contributions to the field go far beyond the results of Stanley Milgrams research, although that is the paradigm normally associated with deception.

Satterlee 9 References American Psychological Association (2012). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Research Center for Human Relations, New York University, 629-636. Epley, N., & Huff, C. (1998). Suspicion, affective response, and educational benefit as a result of deception in psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 759768. Herrera, C. D. (2001). Ethics, Deception, and Those Milgram Experiments. Journal Of Applied Philosophy, 18(3), 245 Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2008). Deception in experiments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense. Ethics & Behavior, 18(1), 59-92. Kimmel, A. J. (2011). Deception in psychological researchA necessary evil? The Psychologist, 24(8). 580-585. McArthur, D. (2009). Good Ethics Can Sometimes Mean Better Science: Research Ethics and the Milgram Experiments. Science & Engineering Ethics, 15(1), 69-79. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9083-4 Ortmann, A. & Hertwig, R. (1997). Is deception acceptable? American Psychologist, 52(7). 746. Ortmann, A. & Hertwig, R. (2002). The costs of deception: evidence from psychology. Experimental Economics, 111.

Satterlee 10 Pascual-Leone, A., Singh, T., & Scoboria, A. (2010). Using Deception Ethically: Practical Research Guidelines for Researchers and Reviewers. Canadian Psychology, 51(4), 241248.